"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repealed!

[Kathryn]

For the record, my three active duty military kids are totally nonplussed about the repeal of DADT (which was a piece of legislation that our entire family thought was ridiculous to start with).

I'm simply asking questions for clarification. To pretend that these are completely non issues is naive in my opinion.

Of course gays have been serving in our military alongside heterosexuals, sharing quarters and showers and fox holes. But the official policy has been for them to keep their sexuality a secret (which I think is a stupid policy), so some of the issues I brought up have been suppressed. Now that there is no official stigma to being gay, the issues will be more out in the open as well.

Fraternization and sexual harrassment are both a pretty big deal in the military. It's hard enough to handle those issues when gender and sexuality lines are clearly drawn. I'm saying that the repeal of DADT will further complicate those issues. I'm not saying that this means that DADT should remain in place - far from it. But I see nothing wrong with mulling over possible scenarios and having a plan in place for those scenarios. Isn't that what military training is all about, anyway?

That's called strategic planning.

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record, my three active duty military kids are totally nonplussed about the repeal of DADT (which was a piece of legislation that our entire family thought was ridiculous to start with).
I'm simply asking questions for clarification. To pretend that these are completely non issues is naive in my opinion.
Of course gays have been serving in our military alongside heterosexuals, sharing quarters and showers and fox holes. But the official policy has been for them to keep their sexuality a secret (which I think is a stupid policy), so some of the issues I brought up have been suppressed. Now that there is no official stigma to being gay, the issues will be more out in the open as well.
Fraternization and sexual harrassment are both a pretty big deal in the military. It's hard enough to handle those issues when gender and sexuality lines are clearly drawn. I'm saying that the repeal of DADT will further complicate those issues. I'm not saying that this means that DADT should remain in place - far from it. But I see nothing wrong with mulling over possible scenarios and having a plan in place for those scenarios. Isn't that what military training is all about, anyway?
That's called strategic planning.

As I understand tacit rules of forums, you're violating #27:
If thou taketh a side on an issue, thou shalt expresseth only positive features of thine chosen side.
To taketh a balanced view, & addresseth problems. This complicateth & confuseth, & earneth thee a scarlet "C".

 

[Alceste]

Do you think it would be OK for a black soldier to request a different roommate if it was a known fact that his roommate was a white supremacist? I mean, using your reasoning, if a soldier can't suck it up and bunk next to a white supremacist, he's not much of a soldier.

I understand that there are many different sorts of people and beliefs in our military and that part of military training is to bond as a team in spite of those differences.

But you didn't answer my question. Should female soldiers be forced to shower or share quarters with male soldiers? Why or why not?

I do not believe that sexual harrassment is limited to heterosexuals.

Let me repeat myself - I support the rights of gays to be in our military, and to be open about their sexuality. I also believe that there are going to be issues stemming from this right, that will need to be addressed - INCLUDING some of their own rights, such as housing for married military, rights of their partners, etc.

I didn't say these issues can't be worked out. I'm just saying that they are there. I'm not sticking my head in the idyllic sand.

You're ignoring the basic point that gay and straight soldiers are bunking and showering together RIGHT NOW (as are black and white supremacist soldiers). This legislation doesn't change anything except whether or not the gay ones have to endure humiliating investigations into their sex life and get fired if they're found out.

 

[Alceste]

Draft dodgers are so sub-human, that we shouldn't even be allowed to offend the eyes of soldiers.
Tis best to keep us out of the military.
A moot issue, some would call it...but there's always some politician (usually a Dem who is past draft age) who wants to re-institute it for multi-cultural goals.

I didn't know McCain was a Dem.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't know McCain was a Dem.

I forgive you for missing the "usually". (McCain is a RINO anyway. Most Pubs are too.)
Having had a draft lottery number of 34 during the VN war, & also having draft age kids, I've a keener interest in following calls to revive the draft.

 

[Alceste]

For the record, my three active duty military kids are totally nonplussed about the repeal of DADT (which was a piece of legislation that our entire family thought was ridiculous to start with).

I'm simply asking questions for clarification. To pretend that these are completely non issues is naive in my opinion.

Of course gays have been serving in our military alongside heterosexuals, sharing quarters and showers and fox holes. But the official policy has been for them to keep their sexuality a secret (which I think is a stupid policy), so some of the issues I brought up have been suppressed. Now that there is no official stigma to being gay, the issues will be more out in the open as well.

Fraternization and sexual harrassment are both a pretty big deal in the military. It's hard enough to handle those issues when gender and sexuality lines are clearly drawn. I'm saying that the repeal of DADT will further complicate those issues. I'm not saying that this means that DADT should remain in place - far from it. But I see nothing wrong with mulling over possible scenarios and having a plan in place for those scenarios. Isn't that what military training is all about, anyway?

That's called strategic planning.

Ah, you didn't miss the point after all - ignore previous post.

I am not seeing any problem with bunking and showering (these things are already going on). I can see spousal benefits being a big problem because gay marriage is still illegal in so many states. Will the military have one policy for soldiers from Massachusetts and another for soldiers from Texas?

Obviously DOMA needs to be next into the shredder to give the government more flexibility to sort these things out.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I recall, the marines were most adamant that gays belonged elsewhere.
It seems that overnite they've figgered out how to cope with change.
The worm turns......
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/us/marine-recruiters-visit-gay-center-in-oklahoma.html?_r=2&hp

 

[Tarheeler]

That's because they adapt and overcome.

Regardless of any personal feelings, the Marine Corps duty is to fully implement the new policy, adapt to the new situation, and excell in all areas.

 

[Jainarayan]

I just think gays should have their own showers. I think it's completely inappropriate that someone should have to take a shower with those that are sexually attracted to their gender. Just like coed showers are inappropriate. At least give heterosexuals the option of taking showers by themselves

That is a good idea, but the liberals will never allow that.

Some straight men think too highly of themselves. They've been showering with gay men forever.

 

[Draka]

You know, sometimes it can be very easy to figure out or even downright obvious, that someone is gay. To think that no one knew before that they were sharing close quarters with gays is a stretch. AND some military members were actually already open about it among certain people. It's just that they didn't go announcing it up the chain of command. Most people I worked with in the Navy didn't really seem to care that much. Sure there'd be the odd redneckish guy who thought gay jokes were funny or it was cool to call someone a ***, but they were an extreme minority and they were the ones usually told to just shut up.

As for men and women sharing quarters I think it could actually be done. It's a matter of just being mature adults and controlling oneself isn't it? I mean, at one point I was sharing a quad (like an apartment set up where there are four smaller rooms with beds around one shared common space) with with 2 Air Force guys and one Navy guy. Now, we didn't share a bathroom, but there were absolutely no issues between us.

 

[Jainarayan]

Do you think it would be OK for a black soldier to request a different roommate if it was a known fact that his roommate was a white supremacist?

This just in! White supremacist fails psych test. Details at 11.

Seriously, there is no monster under the bed. But everyone is looking for one.

 

[Draka]

Some straight men think too highly of themselves. They've been showering with gay men forever.

I know like straights and gays haven't been showering and living together since the dawn of the military. I already said earlier that I showered with lesbians. Really, it wasn't an issue. Didn't bother me in the slightest. Because group showers aren't meant for taking time and making moves or even looking. You're there to get in, get clean, and get out. No one's really even concerned with who else is in there.

Not to mention the question of "what makes you think you're so hot that someone couldn't help oogling you or getting turned on by you?"

 

[Duck]

I just think gays should have their own showers. I think it's completely inappropriate that someone should have to take a shower with those that are sexually attracted to their gender. Just like coed showers are inappropriate. At least give heterosexuals the option of taking showers by themselves

The vast majority of showers I have had outside of bootcamp (which was pretty busy time, NOT a lot of time for me shower, much less think about sex or how nice someone looked) were private. In fact, I think that I have taken more public (as in not private stalls) showers off base at civilian gyms than I have on a military base. However, I have seen more heterosexual men walking around sans towel in open bay berthing compartments fondling themselves than I have had lovers. I think that all those sensitive hetero boys who feel threatened somehow by teh gheyz are likely a figment of the right wing.

 

[gnomon]

I just think gays should have their own showers. I think it's completely inappropriate that someone should have to take a shower with those that are sexually attracted to their gender. Just like coed showers are inappropriate. At least give heterosexuals the option of taking showers by themselves

I don't.

When I was living in a halfway house a coworker of mine moved in for help with his substance addiction. He was gay. My other two roommates felt the need to question him incessantly about his homosexuality and said they felt strange if they walked through the house wearing nothing but boxers and a t-shirt while he was around.

I found this mentality among my fellow heterosexual males to be a sign of insecurity. Foolish insecurity. It used to be that I could only imagine what women went through being ogled all the time and having strangers hit on them. Than one day an old man propositioned me at work. At first I was shocked, then I felt creeped out a bit......then I laughed. Now I have a small inkling of what many women go through on a day to day basis.

It's time for the straight male in this culture to grow up and quit their ********. So a gay man might look at your ***. Who cares.

 

[Kathryn]

You're ignoring the basic point that gay and straight soldiers are bunking and showering together RIGHT NOW (as are black and white supremacist soldiers). This legislation doesn't change anything except whether or not the gay ones have to endure humiliating investigations into their sex life and get fired if they're found out.

No, I'm not at all ignoring the fact that gays have been serving and showering in the military for decades. In fact, in a post one or two up the thread, I clearly acknowledged that fact.

But they've had to hide and deny their sexuality - and now they don't (and I'll repeat - I don't think they should have to hide their sexuality). This openness COULD cause some issues that I brought up - just as heterosexual sexual harrassment and hostile work environments are an issue, so may homosexual sexual harrassment and a hostile work environment become more of an issue.

Are you saying that gay soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines are inherently morally superior to heterosexual military personnel? If not - do you believe that now that they can be more open regarding sexual orientation, that there could be more homosexual perpetrators of sexual harrassment or a hostile work environment?

If so - what plan does the military have in place regarding barracks, bathrooms, fraternization, housing, etc?

Is it somehow wrong to bring up those questions? They seem to be legitimate questions to me.

 

[Draka]

No, I'm not at all ignoring the fact that gays have been serving and showering in the military for decades. In fact, in a post one or two up the thread, I clearly acknowledged that fact.

But they've had to hide and deny their sexuality - and now they don't (and I'll repeat - I don't think they should have to hide their sexuality). This openness COULD cause some issues that I brought up - just as heterosexual sexual harrassment and hostile work environments are an issue, so may homosexual sexual harrassment and a hostile work environment become more of an issue.

Are you saying that gay soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines are inherently morally superior to heterosexual military personnel? If not - do you believe that now that they can be more open regarding sexual orientation, that there could be more homosexual perpetrators of sexual harrassment or a hostile work environment?

If so - what plan does the military have in place regarding barracks, bathrooms, fraternization, housing, etc?

Is it somehow wrong to bring up those questions? They seem to be legitimate questions to me.

Actually Kathryn, the only time I can clearly recall having to shower with others while in the Navy was in bootcamp. Believe me, sexual thoughts and who's looking at who aren't exactly even a flicker in the mind when going through bootcamp. Living in barracks you are usually just in a roommate situation like you would be in college or Jobcorps and what-have-you. If one has issues with a roommate one can always request a transfer to another room or find someone willing to swap rooms with you.

As for sexual harassment in the workplace, I still don't see the issue. It's not as if it doesn't already go on. Speaking as a woman who was the only female in her shop for the 2 years I was at a particular command, I got my regular share of jokes, comments, and inappropriate passes. Sexual harassment is what it is. I don't see why it would be considered or handled any different regardless of the genders involved. What may be increased however, is the occurrence of harassment of homosexuals now that they are allowed to be "out". And that is not ever on the fault of the gay person, but the bigot that should be processed out for not being able to function in a cohesive group setting. If someone wants to stay in the military, then I guess they better just learn to deal huh?

There are already fraternization rules in place. Those would not need to be changed.

 

[Kathryn]

Draka, I appreciate your input.

So, are you saying that men or women should be allowed to room together UNLESS they are in a sexual relationship? If they are in a sexual relationship, should they have to change their living arrangement? How is that monitored? Or should it even BE monitored? If single, unmarried people of the opposite sex are not allowed to quarter together, does that apply to gay couples who aren't married as well?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe as it stands right now, people of different genders are not expected, under most circumstances, to live in quarters or the barracks together and share bathroom facilities. Does sexual orientation change any of this? Why or why not?

Just because someone is a professional soldier, sailor, airman or marine, this doesn't mean that you can bunch up a lot of 20-something single people and think that sexuality and sexual behavior (and misbehavior) won't be a significant issue to deal with. I've never been active duty military, but my dad, my exhusband, and three of my kids are military - I've lived my whole life around the military as a military kid, wife, and mom, and I know about all the drama regarding fraternization that can be a part of life on a military installation.

As I've said before, I support the rights of gays to serve in the military and be open about their sexual orientation. I applaud them for their choice of career, and thank them for their service to their country. But I'm not going to pretend that this shift in policy won't have implications that need to be thought through and addressed - to protect their rights and the rights of others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ideally though, it would be nice if we as a species could get past certain things sexually. Then perhaps it wouldn't matter what gender or orientation people are in the showers or bunks. Like that movie I can never remember the name of. The one with the big alien bugs and Neil Patrick Harris. Everyone worked together, showered together, shared quarters together and were just seen as other soldiers period. Wouldn't that be nice?

Starship Troopers.

But they've had to hide and deny their sexuality - and now they don't (and I'll repeat - I don't think they should have to hide their sexuality). This openness COULD cause some issues that I brought up - just as heterosexual sexual harrassment and hostile work environments are an issue, so may homosexual sexual harrassment and a hostile work environment become more of an issue.

The repeal of DADT doesn't legalize sexual harrassment.

 

[Kathryn]

The repeal of DADT doesn't legalize sexual harrassment.

I realize this - OF COURSE. I am not an idiot.

I am clearly asking very specific questions regarding living arrangements. If these are not addressed, is the likelihood of different forms of unfair treatment of various couples, sexual harrassment and hostile work environment increased?

I think it's fair and honest to explore these possible scenarios and to develop PROACTIVE plans rather than be reactive and have unanticipated scenarios happen to real people in real life, creating real victims of various sexual orientations.

I think to avoid even bringing up the questions is unrealistic. I'm not afraid to "sound" politically incorrect. I admire the men and women who choose a military career, regardless of their sexual orientation. I want the best policies in place to protect the rights of ALL of them. Those policies can only be developed if we drop the political correctness or any Pollyanna mentality and look at the issues realistically and honestly.

I don't think that just because the pendulum has swung unfairly in one direction for so long, that we now should allow it to swing unfairly in another direction. I'm not saying that's the case - I'm ASKING if the military has policies in place to protect the rights of ALL military personnel.

 

[gnomon]

The reaction in the debate last night to a gay soldiers Youtube question, not the boos because it only sounded like a few people and that can be expected at a Republican convention, but the response to Santorum's imbecilic response is what makes me sad.

It's hard to believe there are still so many stupid people in the 21st century in regards to human sexuality. Santorum is afraid that the specific language repealing that policy is creating social policy in the military. Never mind the fact that not allowing gays to serve in the military is creating social policy in the military. Guy's an *** kissing idiot.

Good thing Santorum doesn't stand a chance to get the Presidency.